Questions for TRAs or Transpeople on here

Why should I care about the feelings of people who don't care if they hurt me?

There is no way that both women who don't consent to the invasion of their privacy and violation of their boundaries, and males who want to invade women's privacy and violate their boundaries, can both be accommodated. Someone has to lose. And many people expect it should be women. That is arguably due to misogyny, internalised misogyny and structural sexism.

No one wants to deny anyone's personal identity.

jellyfrizz that's not true. Have a look back at this thread. There are examples in just the last day.

Ok yes, badly worded. What I meant is that denying people's identity is not the aim, it's more of a by-product of having to define sex in order to defend sex-based protections.

Why do you think I should concern myself with the hurt feelings of people who fail to recognise reality? How do you suggest we have the conversation if we must constantly be walking on eggshells around their feelings? When they give not one fuck about mine?

People who are mentally ill also "fail to recognise reality". Someone who identifies as Napoleon is indeed going to be very hurt when the world disagrees. Do we have to not care about those hurt feelings, just because the person is objectively wrong? Is the person who believes they are Napoleon not worthy of our sympathy for this difficult situation they find themselves in, where no one agrees with them and laughs at them and tells them they're not who they say they are? That must be pretty fucking awful for the person who genuinely believes they are Napoleon. I am sympathetic to their feelings. I still don't agree myself that they are Napoleon, but perhaps they can have a fulfilling life living as Napoleon in many aspects, without us supporting them into waging battles at sea in pursuit of an empire when it would harm others?

Like I say - the debate gets pushed into me vs you. Because feelings run high, understandably. I don't think you're wrong to be angry that the TRAs aren't grasping why women are getting screwed.

The truth is I don't know how we have the conversation.

It's the activism and dogma that is the issue. And both side of this argument are pushing the other away into hardline positions

The truth is women are saying 'no' to males in their spaces, they want to persevere sex segregation. Thats what's pushing TIM into a hard line position.

There can't be a compromise, sex segregation exists or it doesn't.

TIM want to be called women so they can access these spaces. Women are pointing out that they aren't women so should not used these spaces.

It doesnt mean that anyone should 'misgender' a TIM walking down the street minding their own business, that would be abuse. But we can't discuss women and girls rights and not name the problem.

Sorry I should really have put all that in the one post

In what way? I want Self ID to go away. I think it is utterly batshit that we could open up the definition of 'female' in law to be 'because I say so'.

And yes. It is. But self ID is two things, something which again is obfuscated by TRAs. It's the legal concept of making male people female because they say so. But it's also the wider concept of services having no gatekeeping and self ID being allowed by the back door and no one allowed to challenge, and women's rights and feelings being disregarded. And to challenge that requires a clear discourse.

I think you'll find that it's very difficult to sit on the fence. Much of this is a zero sum game.

In what way? I want Self ID to go away. I think it is utterly batshit that we could open up the definition of 'female' in law to be 'because I say so'.

Why do you think I should concern myself with the hurt feelings of people who fail to recognise reality? How do you suggest we have the conversation if we must constantly be walking on eggshells around their feelings? When they give not one fuck about mine?

Which is OK. I understand why. Everyone has principles/line in the sand etc. But we can't deny that some people on the side of women's rights will be hurtful to trans people by denying their identities.

Yes and if someone genuinely identifies as Napoleon it will be hurtful to them when the world fails to agree.

You don't seem that sure what you want from the discourse?

In what way? I want Self ID to go away. I think it is utterly batshit that we could open up the definition of 'female' in law to be 'because I say so'.

No one wants to deny anyone's personal identity.
jellyfrizz that's not true. Have a look back at this thread. There are examples in just the last day.

I don't want to. You might not want to. But there certainly are people on the "right" side who would deny a trans person's personal identity by saying they cannot be who they say they are.

Which is OK. I understand why. Everyone has principles/line in the sand etc. But we can't deny that some people on the side of women's rights will be hurtful to trans people by denying their identities.

A man cannot become a woman - biology dictates humans cannot change sex, this is a fact. I personally believe it is important to treat individuals kindly and respectfully even if their beliefs do not match mine, so I will act accordingly. Laws should be based on facts, not beliefs, so I will support legal definitions being crystal clear.

It's the activism and dogma that is the issue. And both side of this argument are pushing the other away into hardline positions.

Yes, I think that was inevitable. I think clarity is needed though. You don't seem that sure what you want from the discourse? And it's the TRAs who have refused to debate, not GC women.

That's lovely and all but at the moment me and my wife both appear as 'parent' on my daughter's birth certificate. Are you really saying one of us should be removed and our anonymous sperm donor should be recorded as the parent instead in the name of accuracy?

Your child only exists because of “that anonymous sperm donor” - the donor is very much a part of them and i think they should be recorded in someway - one day your child might want to meet them, know about them, see a picture.

The difference is they're not lobbying the government or having this taken seriously as something that should be blindly accepted by society.

Because it is not a benefit for men. Everything about the TRAs benefits men. Which is why it is a MRA movement.

Eresh I am with you on not undermining sex-based rights. So I think the legalities need to be clear and non-negotiable on this, which they are not at the moment.

For myself, I could just never say that I didn't care about someone's worldview or opinion of their own identity. I couldn't dismiss it that easily.

The question posed was if GC people call trans people 'feminine men' or 'masculine women' does that hurt transgender people in any way? Either individually or as a group?

And I believe yes, it hurts the individual very much. As a group, though, it is more debatable because then you are back to definitions of entrance to a group, so you need to be able to not couch this in terms of woolly language.

TERFragette I absolutely believe gender dysphoria is a mental health issue similar to anorexia.

If someone who is anorexic said they are a fat person not a thin one, it is generally bad form to facilitate this thought and they are given medical intervention to help them come to terms with the body they have.
Because they can die from their belief. There's no 'safe' way to be an anorexic. You cannot safely starve yourself to death.

But there is no lobby of anorexic activists shutting down the discussion and insisting that people with anorexia are indeed thin people, and should be able to starve themselves if they wish
Actually if you trawl the web there are plenty of horrible places where anorexics and bulimics etc support each other to do just this. It is recognised to be a form of social contagion too, like similar websites for suicidal people.

The difference is they're not lobbying the government or having this taken seriously as something that should be blindly accepted by society.

It's the activism and dogma that is the issue. And both side of this argument are pushing the other away into hardline positions.

No one wants to deny anyone's personal identity. They just want people to respect that sex-segregated areas are segregated by sex, not identity.

I don’t think there’s any contradiction is listening and respecting people’s personal identity - I can respect that trans women are not ‘men’ whilst still believing they shouldn’t be able to access all the sex-based spaces and places for women.

If TIM stopped using women and girls spaces, I don't think anyone would have any issue with TIM. The problem starts with them identifying as women, and using that identity as justification to use women and girls spaces.

Where does one go when everyone is treating on eggshells to not upset men in case they actually define as women?

The heart of the matter.

They’ve told you - I am a trans woman. I am not a ‘feminine man’. If you say I am a ‘feminine man’ I don’t recognise that as me ... NatLuc said in this thread they lived as a feminine man - wearing jewellery, being themselves and displaying ‘feminine’ traits and were accepted but they didn’t feel that was right, they needed to transition despite the acceptance of them as a feminine man. So they are a trans woman.

That is interesting. If someone who is anorexic said they are a fat person not a thin one, it is generally bad form to facilitate this thought and they are given medical intervention to help them come to terms with the body they have.

But there is no lobby of anorexic activists shutting down the discussion and insisting that people with anorexia are indeed thin people, and should be able to starve themselves if they wish, and bullying/doxxing/threatening people who support anorexia charities who support medical intervention.

I am a 50 year old woman. I have never felt 'right' in my body. i have also never met a woman who does feel 'right' in their body. It is a common thing to not feel right in one's body. But one's body is one's body. if someone calls me 'fat' [and they have done even when I was a size 8] - that hurts me but nobody falls over themselves to tell the person they are 'assigning me a label that doesn't fit'.

Crikey.

Where does one go when everyone is treating on eggshells to not upset men in case they actually define as women?

The underlying threat is always this - so expertly illustrated here:

Daimbars, you don't have to be a biological parent to be on a birth certificate or to actually be a parent.

As I said earlier in the thread and what bloodmagic says is that you cannot both be the biological parent of your child.

No one on the planet believes that two women could produce a baby, because biology, and yet some seem to think that humans can somehow change sex by completely ignoring that very same biology.

You being your childs parent affects no one else. It has no impact on women's rights.

That's lovely and all but at the moment me and my wife both appear as 'parent' on my daughter's birth certificate. Are you really saying one of us should be removed and our anonymous sperm donor should be recorded as the parent instead in the name of accuracy?

Of course she didn't say that. Stop twisting her words. We see you.

It hurts them because you’re saying you know their identity better than they do. You are assigning them a label you believe fits, even when they are saying No, that is not me.

I don't care about their identity. That's entirely subjective. I'm not interested in their worldview. I just care that I don't want males colonising womanhood, because it undermines the position of women and erodes our sex based rights.

Nosquirrels

I am never going to call a male person a woman. "Trans woman" is an obfuscatory term which reinforces the lie and erases women as a class of people who are disadvantaged on the grounds of sex. It's a large part of the reason why we are in this situation.

It's fine to recognise that trans identified males are not women.

NatLuc, you aren't a woman. You're a man and that's just fine.You don't need to be a woman or 'be seen' as a woman. You don't need to be anything other than exactly what you are

See I think this is not OK, to tell a trans woman that “you are a man, and that’s just fine”. No. They’ve told you - I am a trans woman. I am not a ‘feminine man’. If you say I am a ‘feminine man’ I don’t recognise that as me ... NatLuc said in this thread they lived as a feminine man - wearing jewellery, being themselves and displaying ‘feminine’ traits and were accepted but they didn’t feel that was right, they needed to transition despite the acceptance of them as a feminine man. So they are a trans woman.

So whilst I agree that trans people could fight for their own recognition/groups/causes, and should, it’s never going to be the case that they’ll agree with you that they’re feminine men/masculine women.

1. If GC people are accepting and advocating for transpeople as they ARE (as feminine men/masculine women, with or without dysphoria) rather than as they would wish to be (for example, advocating for fair representation of transwomen as a category in politics, rather than transwoman being counted as women), does that hurt transgender people in any way? Either individually or as a group?

It hurts them because you’re saying you know their identity better than they do. You are assigning them a label you believe fits, even when they are saying No, that is not me.

I don’t think there’s any contradiction is listening and respecting people’s personal identity - I can respect that trans women are not ‘men’ whilst still believing they shouldn’t be able to access all the sex-based spaces and places for women.